Is Putin really ready to “ditch” Iran?

The topic of Russian actions in Syria still continues to fascinate and create a great deal of polemics. This makes senses – the issue is exceedingly important on many levels, including pragmatic and moral ones, and today I want to stick strictly to the pragmatic level and set aside, just for a while, moral/ethical/spiritual considerations. Furthermore, I will also pretend, for argument’s sake, that the Kremlin is acting in unison, that there are no Atlantic Integrationists in the Russian government, no 5th column in the Kremlin and that there is no Zionist lobby exerting a great deal of influence in Russia. I will deal with these issues in the future as there is no doubt in my mind that time and events will prove how unfounded and politically-motivated these denials are in reality. But for the purpose of this analysis, we can pretend that all is well in the Kremlin and assume that Russia is fully sovereign and freely protecting her national interests.

So what do we know about what is going on in Syria?

I submit that it is obvious that Russia and Israel have made some kind of deal. That there is an understanding of some kind is admitted by both sides, but there is also clearly more happening here which is not spelled out in full. The Israelis, as always, are bragging about their total victory and posting articles like this one: “In Syria, Putin and Netanyahu Were on the Same Side All Along” with the subheading reading “Putin is ready to ditch Iran to keep Israel happy and save Assad’s victory“. Really?

The chaotic world of contradictory declarations and statements

Let’s look at that thesis from a purely logical point of view. First, what were the Israeli goals initially? As I have explained it elsewhere, initially the Israelis had the following goals:

Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces, and security services.

Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan but further north.

Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.

Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone”, but this time in Lebanon.

Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.

Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.

Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.

Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.

Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.

Now let’s stop right here and ask a very simple question: if Putin and Netanyahu were on the same side all along, what should Putin have done to aid the Israelis? I submit that the obvious and indisputable answer is: absolutely nothing. By the time the Russian initiated their (very limited but also very effective) intervention in Syria those plans were well under way towards full realization!

The undeniable truth is that Putin foiled the initial Israel plan for Syria.

In fact, Hezbollah and Iran had already intervened in Syria and were desperately “plugging holes” in a collapsing Syrian front. So, if anything, Putin has to be the one to be credited for forcing the Israelis to give up on their “plan A” and go to plan “B” which I described here and which can be summarized as follows:

Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. (…) If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard. Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and (…) and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.

As I have explained it in great detail here, Russia does not have any moral obligation to protect anybody anywhere, not in the Middle-East and most definitely not Syria and/or Iran. I have also explained in great detail here why Putin also has a lot of pragmatic internal reasons for not getting Russia involved in a major war in the Middle-East.

Finally, as I have explained here, the Israelis are clearly baiting Iran by striking Iranian (or, more accurately, Iranian-linked or Iranian-supported) targets in Syria. They hope that Iran’s patience will come to an end and that the Iranians will retaliate with enough firepower to justify not only an attack on (relatively low value) Iranian-linked targets in Syria but on Iran proper, thus leading to a guaranteed Iranian retaliation on Israel and The Big Prize: a massive US attack on Iran.

Now let’s look at Russian actions once again. If Putin was “on the same side with Netanyahu all along”, he would be helping the Israelis do what they are doing, that is baiting the Iranians, right? But what did Putin really do?

It all began with a statement by Foreign Minister Lavrov who declared that all foreign forces must leave Syria. It is my understanding that no direct quote exists from Lavrov’s initial statement, only interpreted paraphrases. Lavrov also made some clarifying comments later, like this one. But let’s not get bogged down in trying to decide which was an off-the-cuff comment and which one was “official”, but let us begin by noticing this: even before Lavrov’s comment on “all foreign forces” the same Lavrov also said that “all US forces must leave Syria after the defeat of the terrorist forces“. May I also remind everybody here that Israel has been illegally occupying the Syrian Golan for years and that the IDF exactly fits into the definition of “foreign force in Syria”? It gets better, according to the Syrians and, frankly according to common sense and international law, the Syrians say that all foreign forces must leave Syria except those legally requested to stay by the Syrian government. So when the Russians say that all foreign forces including Iranians (assuming Lavrov really said that) must leave Syria they have absolutely no legal or other authority to impose that, short of a UNSC Resolution endorsing that demand. Considering that the Israelis and the USA don’t give a damn about international law or the UNSC, we might even see a day when such a resolution is passed, enforced on the Iranians only, and ignored by the Israelis. The trick here is that in reality there are rather few Iranian “forces” in Syria. There are many more “advisors” (which would not be considered a “force”) and many more pro-Iranian forces which are not really “Iranian” at all. There is also Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is not going anywhere, and they are Lebanese, not Iranian anyway. No doubt the Israelis would claim that Hezbollah is an “Iranian force” but that is basically nonsense. And just to add to the confusion, the Russians are now being cute and saying: “of course, the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces must be carried out on a mutual basis, this should be a two-way street“. I suggest that we can stop listing all the possible paraphrases and interpretations and agree that the Russians have created a holy (or unholy) mess with their statements. In fact, I would even submit that, what appears to be a holy (or unholy) mess, is a very deliberate and crafty ambiguity.

According to numerous Russian sources, all this rhetoric is about the southern part of Syria and the line of contact (it ain’t a border legally speaking) between Syria and Israel. The deals seem to be this: the pro-Iranian forces and Hezbollah get out of the south, and in exchange, the Israelis let the Syrians, backed by Russian airpower and “advisors” regain control of southern Syria but without any attempts to push the Israelis out of the Golan which they illegally occupy. Needless to say, the Syrians are also insisting that as part of the deal, the US forces in southern Syria must pack and leave. But, frankly, unless the US plans to have tiny (and useless) US enclaves inside Syrian controlled territory I don’t see the point of them staying. Not only that, but the Jordanians seem to be part of this deal too. And here is the best part: there is some pretty good evidence that Hezbollah and Iran also are part of the deal. And, guess what? So are the Turks.

If all this looks to you like evidence for the thesis that “Putin and Netanyahu were on the same side all along”, then I wonder what it would take to convince you otherwise because to me this looks like one of three things:

some kind of major regional deal has been made or

some kind of major regional deal is in the process of being hammered out or

some kind of major regional deal has been made but nobody trusts anybody else and everybody wants to make that deal better for itself

and, of course, everybody wants to save face by either denying it all or declaring victory, especially the AngloZionists.

So let’s ask the key question: is there any evidence at all that Putin and/or Assad is/are “ditching Iran”?

Away from the realm of declarations and statements and back to the world

Let’s begin with a simple question: What does Iran want above all else?

I submit that the overwhelming number one priority of Iran is to avoid a massive US attack on Iran.

Not because of a non-existing Iranian nuclear program threatening Israel, but because Iran offers a most successful, and therefore dangerously competing, alternative civilizational model to both the AngloZionist Empire and the Saudi-Wahabi version of Islam. Furthermore, unlike (alas!) Russia, Iran dares to openly commit the “crime of crimes”, that is, to publicly denounce Israel as a genocidal, racist state whose policies are an affront to all of civilized mankind. Finally, Iran (again unlike Russia, alas!) is a truly sovereign state which has successfully dealt with its 5th columnists and which is not in the iron claws of IMF/WB/WTO/etc types (I wrote about that last week so I won’t repeat it here).

I also submit that Iran also has as a top priority to support all the oppressed people of the Middle-East. Resisting oppression and injustice is a Quranic imperative and I believe that in its Iranian interpretation this also extends to non-Shia Sunnis and even Christians and Jews, but since I know that this will trigger all sorts of angry accusations of being naive (or even a Shia propagandist) I will concede that helping the oppressed Shia in the region is probably more important to the Iranian leaders than helping all the other oppressed. In secular terms, this means that Iran will try to protect and assist the Shia in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, considering the amazing mercy shown by Hezbollah to the SLA in southern Lebanon in 2000, and the fact that currently, the Syrian security forces are acting with utmost restraint in the parts of Syria which have accepted the Russian deal (this even has some Russian analysts outright worried) I think that Iranian-backed forces liberating Syria from Daesh are the best thing which anybody could hope for.

Furthermore, the truth is that for all its other faults, the Ba’athist regime in Syria was tolerant of minorities and that Hezbollah has always been protective of absolutely all the Lebanese people regardless of confession or ethnicity (others might disagree with me, but having studied Hezbollah and Iran for several decades now I come to the conclusion that they, unlike most other political actors, are actually truthful when they state their intentions).

So who is the biggest threat to the Shia and, I would argue, to all the people of the Middle-East? The Takfiris of Daesh of course.

And what do all the variants of the possible “big regional deal” have in common? The elimination of Daesh & Co. from Syria.

So how is that against the Iranian interests?!

It isn’t, of course.

The truth is that I see absolutely no evidence at all for “Putin and Netanyahu working together all along”. What I do see is that some kind of deal is being worked out between numerous parties in which everybody is probably trying hard to cheat everybody else, Realpolitik at its worst and most cynical – yes. But hardly a betrayal of Iran by Russia.

What everybody seems to be doing is what blacksmith Vakula did in Gogol’s Christmas Story “The Night Before Christmas“: to trick the devil. In Russia, the devil is known as “лукавый” which does not just mean “evil” but also sly/wily/deceitful/wickedly clever. To try to trick the devil is a very, very dangerous and difficult task and I also find it morally very questionable. But in keeping up with our modern value-neutral “realistic” Zeitgeist, we can also debunk the “Putin betrays Iran” on purely cynical and “pragmatic” reasons with no need to appeal to any higher values at all.

For those who have not seen it yet, I highly recommend this (English subtitled) video of Ruslan Ostashko discussing what Israel can, or cannot, offer Russia and Putin:

Ostashko is absolutely right. The truth is that Israel, unlike Iran, has very little to offer Putin or Russia. This does not mean that Israel does not have influence over the Kremlin, it most definitely does, but that influence is all “stick”, no “carrot” (which is one of the conceptual flaws in the position of those who deny the existence of a Zionist 5th column in Russia – they are denying the existence of the “stick” while producing no “carrot” thus making Russian policies appear both contradictory and unexplainable: hence a need for all sorts of mental contortions to try to explain them).

But Israel’s “stick”, while undeniably big, is dwarfed by Iran’s “carrot”: not only immense resources and billions of Dollars/Rubles/Rials/Euros to be made in energy and weapons and also many sectors of the economy. There is also the fact that Iran is truly the number one regional power in the entire Middle-East: maybe not big enough to impose its will on all others, but definitely big enough to bring down any major plan or policy it does not approve of. Furthermore, now that the international sanctions against Iran have been officially lifted (the USA’s reneging on its signature notwithstanding), Iran can join and become an influential member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (along with, possibly, other Middle-Eastern countries). All this makes the Iranian “carrot” very attractive to Russia. There is also a conceptual Iranian “stick”: if Israel gets its way and Iran is massively and viciously attacked by the AngloZionist Empire, and either chaos or a severe crisis result, what would be the impact on Russia and her allies? And, while I don’t think for a second that this is possible, let’s say the Empire puts a pro-AngloZionist regime in power in Tehran and overthrows the Islamic Republic – what would that do to the Russian national security? It would be an absolute nightmare, wouldn’t it?

Look at the relationship between Russia and Turkey before the coup attempt against Erdogan. Surely that relationship was much worse than the relationship currently enjoyed between the Islamic Republic and Russia, right? And yet, when the US attempted to topple Erdogan, what did Russia do? Russia gave Erdogan her fullest support and even, according to some rumors, physical protection during a few key hours. If Russia sided with Erdogan against the Empire, why would Russia not side with the Islamic Republic, even if we consider only arguments of Russian self-interest?

For an excellent Iranian analysis of the Russia-Iran alliance, check out this article by Aram Mirzaei.

Conclusion

The simple truth is that regardless of declarations and political statements, China, Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are all dependent on each other and cannot afford to truly betray anybody lest the Empire take them out one by one. To use Franklin’s expression – they all must hang (i.e. stand) together or most assuredly they will all “hang separately”? That does not mean that they all love each other, or always share the same goals? They might also play against each other to some degree, and even try to get some sweet deal “on the side” with the AngloZionists (remember, Assad used to torture for the CIA!), but the facts on the ground and the correlation of forces in the Middle-East will limit the scope of such “mini-betrayals”, at least for the foreseeable future.

True, there is the Saudi factor to take into account. Unlike the Israelis, the Saudis are offering a lot of “carrot”. But the Saudis are way too arrogant, they are already messing with Russian interests not only in Syria, but also in Qatar, and their brand of Islam is truly a mortal danger for Russia. Right now the Atlantic Integrationists and Eurasian Sovereignists have achieved somewhat of an equilibrium in the Kramlin. The former is trying to split the EU from the USA and make lots of money, while the latter are left in charge of national security issues, especially towards the South, but this equilibrium is inherently unstable and would be immediately threatened by any meaningful AngloZionist attack. So yes, there is a Zionist Lobby in Russia and yes, it does act as a 5th column, but not, most emphatically no, it is not strong enough to completely disregard the financial interests of the Russian business elites or, even less so, fundamental Russian national security interests. That is the one of biggest difference between the USA and Russia: Russia, while only partially sovereign, is far from being an Israeli protectorate or colony. And as long as Russia retains her even partial sovereignty she will not “ditch” Iran, regardless of Israeli whining and threats.

My personal evaluation is that Putin is playing a very complex and potentially dangerous game. He is trying to trick not one, but many “devils”, all at the same time. Furthermore, if the US Americans have been недоговороспособны (“not agreement capable”) already since Obama, Trump and his Neocon masters have made that even worse. As for the Israelis, they would make Satan himself look honest and are ideologically incapable of honesty (or even decency). Frankly, I don’t trust Erdogan one bit and I don’t think that the Russians will ever trust him either. Call me naive, but I think that Assad has been changed by this war and even if he did, indeed, collaborate with the CIA in the past, I think that he will be a pretty good ally for Russia in the future. As for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Hassan Nasrallah, I see them both as men of honor who will uphold any alliance they formally enter into (informal understandings and temporary mutual interests are a different deal). I also see them as brilliant and wise geostrategists: they fully realize that Iran and Hezbollah *need* Russia to survive. So Putin’s policy, while dangerous, is not doomed to failure at all: he is trying to save Syria from the AngloZionsts while avoiding a regional war. Time is on his side as Trump’s erratic (and that is putting it mildly) policies (or, really, lack thereof) are inflicting tremendous damage on the Empire on a daily basis (see Dmitri Orlov’s excellent analysis here).

I honestly don’t know if Putin’s dangerous strategy will work or not. I don’t think anybody else does either (except ignorant cheerleaders, of course). But I do know that even if the sight of Bibi Netanyahu in Moscow with a Saint George ribbon was nauseating to my conscience, this absolutely does not indicate that Netanyahu and Putin are working together or that Russia is “ditching Iran”. As always, the Israelis feel almighty and brazenly display their arrogance. Let them. Just remember the inevitable outcome from that kind of Zionist hubris in the past and wait for the inevitable “oy vey!“.

Finally, there is the single most important fact: the AngloZionist Empire and Russia remain at war, and have been so for at least four years or more. That war is still about 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic, but it this is a very real war nonetheless, and it is escalating. As long as Russia will retain even partial sovereignty and as long as she will offer an alternative civilizational model, even an imperfect one, she will remain an existential threat to the Empire and the Empire will remain an existential threat for the entire Russian civilizational realm. While hugely important to Israel, the entire Iranian issue is just a sideshow to the transnational leaders of the Empire who see Russia and China as the real main competitors, especially when joined in a symbiotic relationship as they are today. Hence the crises in the Ukraine and on the Korean Peninsula, hence the constants warnings of a possible full-scale nuclear war (see Eric Zuesse latest article here or Paul Craig Roberts numerous article on his website; also check out Dan Glazebrook’s excellent analysis of Trump’s attempt to repeat the “Rambouillet ruse” in Korea here). Even if Putin succeeds in moving the EU closer to Russia and away from a (clearly insane) USA, and even if he succeeds in preventing the AngloZionists from directly attacking Iran, this will only further convince the AngloZionist leaders of the Empire that he, Putin, and Russia, are the ultimate evil which must be eliminated. Those who hope for some kind of modus vivendi between the Empire and Russia are kidding themselves, because the very nature of the Empire makes this impossible. Besides, as Orlov correctly pointed it out – the Empire’s hegemony is collapsing, fast. The Empire’s propaganda machine denies and obfuscates this, and those who believe it don’t see it – but the leaders of the Empire all understand this, hence the escalation on all fronts we have seen since the Neocons re-took power in the White House. If the Neocons continue on their current course, and I don’t see any indication whatsoever that they are reconsidering it, then the question is only when/where this will lead to a full-scale war first. Your guess is as good as mine.

The Saker

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

99 Comments

It’s anyone’s guess why this statement was necessary by NATO, but it may just have been a behind-the-scenes effort by ME Arab interests to leverage their huge arms purchasing power (read Tribute). As pointed out, it had good Arab/Iranian PR value for a day and zero substance from yapping EU poodles. Given the 80% US factor, not to mention the Germans donating nuclear submarines etc, what would a NATO (minus the US) mean in any case? Turkey perhaps, but highly unlikely under current circumstances.

As often demonstrated, the Israeli parasitoid has all the host it needs in that mindless foreign policy “making itself grate again” wasteland lying between Canada and Mexico. The only thing Rothschild’s Palestine Occupation Crusade need from Europa is the Eurovision stage for the likes of a Netta Barzilai (“In a glittery corset and kimono, Ms. Barzilai, 25, took the stage singing, “I’m not your toy, you stupid boy,” interspersing the verses with arm flaps, beatboxing and chicken noises.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/arts/eurovision-winner-netta-barzilai-israel.html )

If I remember the exact wording of the announcement correctly, the announcement was that an attack on a NATO “partner” would not automatically trigger the alliance to join the war. There is a section of the NATO treaty, I believe known as Article 5, that says all of NATO fights if one of NATO is attacked. The statement simply clarified that this only applied to full members of the treaty organization and not ‘partners’ like Israel.

I suspect this is more related to Israel’s deliberate killing of protestors than is commonly given credit. Europe would have reacted more strongly to the killings than the US. In the US, having people open fire with military grade weapons on a large crowd of peaceful people is simply known as a “Vegas Vacation.” But I’m guessing that had more of an effect on Europe.

But note, the statement did not say that NATO would not join in on a war that begins with an attack on Israel, but only that NATO is not automatically obligated to do so given that Israel is only a ‘partner’.

… I think it’s a more simple explanation.
That the EU, (more specifically Germany France Italy Greece etc) is watching the Israeli attempts to provoke a regional war against Iran with something approaching horror and are letting her (and the US and any Arab hopefuls) know upfront “You will not have our support!”

The last thing the EU needs is another few million destitute refugees from yet another destroyed country flooding into Europe and war with Iran means that’s exactly what they will get.

While it isn’t necessary to tell Israel she’s excluded from Article 5 protection – it seems they feel it’s necessary to remind her. (Perhaps Mr Nuttiyahoo let slip he will be attacking Iran in Syria and the US has assured him of “NATO support?”)

Article 5 doesn’t actually require that NATO countries “fight,” merely that all members “assist” the member attacked and the level of assistance is determined by each member: (“such action as it deems necessary”) …. “assist” also means member countries can’t ‘join the other side.’

Article 5 is also collective defense against region-specific attacks only: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” IOW., if anyone attacks US forces in Syria, the US can’t invoke Article 5. [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm]

I’m sure a part of this is just the personal corruption of the Netanyahu clan. Trying to churn up some more bribe money for the clan.

However, a public explanation of this trip has been to try to get the Europeans to join Trump in violating the Iran Nuke Deal. And presumably this discussion would follow the natural course of discussing the war that would follow such an act.

NATO comes out and makes an announcement that just because Israel sent a few paratroopers to Poland to participate in NATO drills, that does not mean that NATO automatically comes rushing in to join a war that Israel is trying to provoke.

What’s interesting is that this announcement was public. If they simply wanted to tell Netanyahu this, enough NATO nation leaders have very recently had face-to-face meetings with Netanyahu, and thus had ample opportunity to clarify this point to Netanyahu. The fact that it is a public statement means that the target of the message was not Netanyahu nor the high leadership of Israel. In fact, since this is the cell phone age and any world leader can simply pick up the phone and talk to any other world leader on relatively short notice, it seems likely that this message was not aimed at any government or world leaders.

Two possibilities come to mind. There are likely others, but these are the two that immediately occur to me. 1) NATO was speaking to the Israeli people. Letting them know that if that NATO won’t have their back if their blood-thirsty leaders do succeed in starting a war. Sine the Likud government would likely be telling the Israeli people the opposite, stressing how Trump and thus the stacks of American tax-payer money are on their side, this seems rather possible.

2) Speaking to the people of Europe. Perhaps they felt the need to quell unrest about supporting an Israeli state that openly massacres people by having snipers fire live ammunition at the heads of peaceful protesters. Except, there doesn’t seem to be any massive unrest over this. I’m guessing that Europeans are much less likely to buy the Netanyahu excuses for mass murder than say Americans, but still, its not like there are millions in the streets marching on the Bastille and setting up guillotines. So, its not like there would be a lot of pressure to come out and issue a press release clarifying what anyone who really cared already knew.

3) Its highly unlikely they were speaking to the American people. NATO would know very well that America is not a democracy and that the American people have no say in such matters. As well as that the mass media control mechanisms are working very well and while some activist types might be grumbling there again are no massive crowds of people marching in protest over what America is doing with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

4) Another reason I can think of is that some leader or government wanted some sort of public statement to back a position that was being told to them in private. I’m sure most non-NATO countries would be well aware that NATO’s word in private is not worth used toilet paper, thus perhaps someone requested that NATO say publicly what they were saying in private. That also makes the wording interesting, as the wording only says the bare minimum of that NATO is not automatically required to come to a “partner’s” assistance. But falls far short of saying that NATO would not get involved in such a war. Makes me wonder if that meant the requirements of whomever was asking for such a public statement, or how much the fact that it was such a very weak statement left them unimpressed.

I recall that during the first Gulf War, similar statements were made by the Bush administration’s April Glaspie stating that Washington took no position on the Iraq-Kuwait disagreement. This was widely interpreted as a “green light” to Saddam. No one held Bush to account for this after Iraq sent in their armed forces. So these statements require careful consideration.

No, of course not. /Sarcasm. Like israel/zionazis trying to poison Iran-Russia relations and people’s perception of them with their trademark psywar. But according to andrew korybko Russia and israel are great friends… :-D

@vot tak
Yes there’s a high chances Russia would take up Israel guardianship (although not the over pampering) should the US or west unable to. If anything it’s because they won’t disappointing anyone to betraying it’s former host.

“As long as Russia will retain even partial sovereignty and as long as she will offer an alternative civilizational model, even an imperfect one, she will remain an existential threat to the Empire and the Empire will remain an existential threat for the entire Russian civilizational realm.”

That leaves only two possible outcomes.

1. A nuclear war by the Empire on Russia to maintain its hegemony.

2. A winding down of the Empire by the US elites knowing that the Empire can no longer be sustained.

Internal coup in the US? The next tier, who are on the inside, see the top tier pushing for hegemony, but see the wider reality/inevitability and are not insane and want the pretty good multipolar neoliberalism(sadly) Putin is consistently offering with outstretched hand. Most likely from inside the three-letters, like Putin came up to shrug off Yeltsin’s era. How violent, yet to be seen.

Talking about “Higher End” I will remember all my life the hilarious incident related to the Columbia disaster. This was the first time that Israel sent a cosmonaut in orbit and the leaders proudly claimed that the event was an indication of God support for Israel. A short time later the space shuttle disintegrated over, this is difficult to believe, the city of Palestine Texas, killing all cosmonauts on board.

It is interesting that no one, or very few, commented on the “Higher End” meaning of this extraordinary event.

There was also a “holocaust” rescued Torah scroll on board which was also incinerated. So go figure that for some arrogant hubris. Plus needlessly risking a sacred work of art which is a high crime in my book.

Thank you! There’s a beautiful example of McFate’s ironic word play, of which there are many naturally which is cause for some of us to wonder, and others to scratch their heads at the continuing abstract absurdiity of their random reality. I try to take note of these cosmic asides when I come upon them in the english language. But this one I had plum forgot over the years!

All because some incompetent US military contractor couldn’t figure out that their rubber o-rings might not work too well in below-freezing temperatures. Combined with some silly NASA officials who just couldn’t wait past the rare below-freezing day in Florida.

PS, I find it hard to believe that the Columbia disintegrated over Texas. NASA launches always went east over the Atlantic, so ‘over Texas’ means almost a complete orbit. The explosion happened on camera after launch, so its about 99% certain that it was out over the Atlantic. And I seem to remember boats going out to recover debris and perhaps pray for the billion to one chance that someone survived.

Mod. Note: Poster, I think you’re confusing the Columbia disaster with the Challenger disaster. They were separate events. The Columbia broke up over Texas in 2003. The Challenger exploded over Florida in 1986.

This is some crazy stuff you’ve mentioned here. I remember reading some time ago that a sharp eyed amateur astronomer noted the initial breakup of the space shuttle over Kingman, Arizona, far to the west of Texas, but this was not reported in the mainstream media –however, the debris fallout over “Palestine”, TX is extremely interesting, yes. Regarding the “holocaust” rescued Torah scroll on board , I have to wonder if this thing , whatever it really was, was some kind of curse……. a “talisman” that failed to deliver a safe journey, obviously. Maybe the Torah has some good words of advice and counsel (?) that don’t need mailing up to the heavens so much as they need to be heeded back here on earth. *** Re. the article, I thank you Saker for pulling so many of these threads together about Russia and Iran, and I strongly believe that both countries realize they have much more to gain economically by Not ditching each other.

The so-called “culture wars” in the USA are extremely wide ranging and deep. I strongly suspect this will lead to a new, hot, US civil war as the US loses more influence in the world. The connection between the two being the loss of value of the dollar and the great need of investment to rebuild US infrastructure. The US is a profoundly unequal society with great poverty and it simply cannot for much longer continue to wage foreign wars. The foreign wars provide a “scapegoat” for the many millions who have not been part of the American dream, always looking outward rather than looking at the local, home grown inequality and injustice, and those within their own country responsible for it. Remove that scapegoat, and the powerful forces of division within the country itself begin to look inward….. there is no distraction any longer.

Yes. Noticeably, both of the last two Presidents ran on campaigns that opposed these wars in one way or another. Obama made a lot of hay from the fact that as a state senator he made a statement against the Iraq War. Trump attacked a different Bush son directly by saying that the Iraq War was a mistake. He openly drew a contrast between the Hillary campaign that wanted conflict with Russia and China and which promised an almost immediate war escalation with a no-fly zone in Syria by being against regime change wars and promising better relations with Russia.

Being against the wars is what sells to American voters. Neither John McCain nor Hillary Clinton became President.

So yes, there is indeed a gap between the American people who see these billions going to the war machine while their houses are foreclosed and their levees collapse, and the deep-state/military-industrial-complex that is getting fabously rich. This gap does run much deeper than just the cracks showing on the surface of the fact that now a candidate must promise to end these wars simply to get elected.

Saker, your argument hinges on 2 premises:
1. Russia is not ethically obliged to defend either Syria or Iran
2. Putin is playing a very clever, complex, dangerous game “trying to trick not one, but many “devils”, all at the same time.”

Re 1: the whole ‘game’ in Syria and the wider ME is not about noble obligations, it is all about power and influence. Russia has tried to portray itself as the new power broker, believing that defeating Daesh with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and the SAA was enough to attain that status. Russia seems to believe it can stay on the sidelines concerning the ZioNazi statelet’s & the US’s incessant provocations of Syria and Iran; Russia also stayed on the sidelines when the FUKUS trio bombed Syria over the fake chemical attack.

Unfortunately for Russia, that sideline position has only encouraged, and continues to encourage, the muderous, psychopathic war criminals in Washington and Jerusalem to ever more boldness because they see Russia’s position as weakness. And that increasing boldness is risking a major unplanned confrontation that puts humanity in danger. So Russia DOES have an ethical obligation, if not to its 2 allies (which I do not agree with) then certainly to the world.

As for your 2nd premise, unless you have access to Putin’s inner circle and are privy to his thinking, it is completely speculative, seemingly given in by an urge to defend Putin’s inaction.

Incidentally, in 2011 Russia/Putin promised Assad those S300′s, and basically reneged on that (signed?) promise to its ally? Ethically this is unacceptable, no matter how you spin it.

Saker, your argument hinges on 2 premises:
1. Russia is not ethically obliged to defend either Syria or Iran
2. Putin is playing a very clever, complex, dangerous game “trying to trick not one, but many “devils”, all at the same time.”

These are not properly speaking an arguments.
#1 is simply a statement of fact
#2 is my interpretation It is an explanation, a model, a theory, if you want.

My only argument/thesis in this article is that “there is no evidence that Russia is ditching Iran”. That’s it.
I also clearly stated that I can make that thesis without resorting to moral/ethical notions or arguments. That was simply a demonstration.

Read my previous articles if you want my ethical/moral/spiritual take on these policies.

Re the S-300’s- the Syrian military has already be trained to use it and there are S-300sin Syria at the moment but under the control of the Russians. The Russians have made it clear that they refrained from supplying the S-300 to the Syrians in 2011 at the request of partners (read US/Israel) but no longer feel morally obliged to keep that promise since the US attack on Douma. So, Putin is keeping his options open AND continues to use the threat of supply of S-300s as a bargaining point. Sun Tze would be proud.

There is no need to be part of the Putin inner circle to know that it is a fiendishly complex situation and any minor slip could bring the whole thing crashing down.

Just think of it.

Russia out to foil a US regime change change project in Syria.
Russia allied with Turkey, Iran and Hezbollah.
Turkey has a formal military alliance with the US.
Israel, protectorate of the US, itching for a war with Iran, supports US objectives in Syria.
Turkey, Iran- regional competitors with competing interests in Syria.
US/Turkey, although allies have nominally different objectives in Syria but could align their objectives if needed.
Iran/Russia with partial overlapping objectives in Syria but with longer term objectives that could be inimical to Russian interests.

That is just for starters- another half dozen countries with a finger in the pie have not even been mentioned.

All these have to be balanced,placated, threatened, bribed, cajoled, sweet talked etc. etc.

By contrast to the April 14 case, the Russian military most likely did not employ own EW systems and did not provide the SADF with the access to operational data from its technical reconnaissance net ahead of the encounter.

Please enough with that Sun Tze, chess, judo nonsense. If S-300 was delivered to Syria in 2011 we wouldn’t have either Israel or US coaltition bombing Syria at will today. It was just another naive move in pleasing ‘partners’.

Lol…Thanks Saker, such comments are needed once a while. It keeps the Resistance on alert with the reality that there are remnants of what we are opposed to on our side too. Brilliant analysis as usual sir.

I moot, there is a shorter list of israeli objectives that leads to the same conclusion. Just my two cents.

1) Destruction of Iran as a regional power.

2) To do this, must first destroy their cats-paw, Hezbollah, who will attack Israel with rockets if Iran is attacked.

3) To do this, must first destroy Hezbollah’s logistic support and suppply routes (Syria), and instal some wahabbis to fight Hezbollah without perceived Israeli involvement, so there is no pretext to rain rockets on israel.

By this variation on the Israeli objectives, we come to the same conclusion. By helping Syria, Russia also helped Hezbollah, and by impliction, Iran, while frustrating the Israeli plans.

my comment was not a personal attack on you or anyone else that offers their opinion.

it was a very simple point that ambivalent statements will always require long drawn out subjective…..interpretations as opposed to say…a statement that can be understood by most reasonably intelligent people who read it.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad was “no longer immune.””If he fires at us, we will destroy his forces… There is a new calculus that has to take place,” Netanyahu added.”https://sptnkne.ws/hGYn

Let’s see how this plays out.
I see continued occupier of Palestinian lands aggressive military aggression as providing ample grounds for launching the liberation of the occupied Golan.
When the takfiris are mopped up as a cohesive traditional military force, and 100% guerrilla, there will be a general (likely slow) agreement of withdraw of Turkish and to a much lesser extent, actual Iranian military force (close to negligible now; so mostly only for show, for that part of it). With the agreement in place, the overt incursions of the occupier of Palestinian lands will be less camouflaged by the fog of war, and the Syrians, with the concentration of their battle-hardened forces, and the readiness of their Pantsir units/systems, will be ready and motivated to liberate the Golan from the aggressors in Tel Aviv.

Russia is not “abandoning” any advantages that it has cultivated in the Middle East, to resist the destructive fits of the empire, including their mutual objective of survival against the empire, and the advantages to both of them of their respective capable continuance, like Iran.

You are a former military intelligence analyst with a “moral and spiritual background” who is helping people make sense of the world and to penetrate the truth…… and probably without your moral background, this blog would have never succeeded, let alone existed.

By the way, without your moral background, I would have never become a regular reader of your blog since 2011-2012.

There are enough analysts, strategists, thinkers and writers who are busy with only the “pragmatics” and the readers know where to find them online. However, what makes you special out of many of these people (together with a few others) is your moral and spiritual background

That said, your pragmatic views and analysis are top notch ;-)

So I thank you for your high moral and spiritual standards…and may the All Mighty keep enlightening you to help enlighten more people to the truth.

and probably without your moral background, this blog would have never succeeded, let alone existed

Agreed. What I did today was simply a one-time thing: to debunk an Israeli propaganda piece and trying to make sense of Russia’s policies *without* using moral/spiritual arguments. But in my piece “It all depends on your values” (http://thesaker.is/it-all-depends-on-your-values/) I unambiguously stated that in my opinion the evaluation/analysis of any policy always has to be moral and spiritual, at least for a person calling himself/herself religious (or even ethical).

But since the notion that loyalty to specific higher values has to prime over loyalty to any person or country was vehemently rejected by so many, I decided to show that this Israeli propaganda piece can be debunked on purely logical grounds.

Don’t worry, I am not changing course: spiritual and moral arguments will always remain my highest value and the core of anything I write! I have no use for the modern crass materialism and absence of values masquerading as “pragmatism” :-)

You just moderate my fear sir, even though I am a Muslim I easily connect with your analytical values. Without exaggeration your site seems the only place where one gets to read about the value of humanity in determining human affairs as against their so called pragmatism which is nothing other than beastly existence.

Iran and Russia were never “hitched” and therefore cannot be “ditched”. The arrangement between Iran and Russia was strictly transitory, for the period they had simultaneous presence in Syria (1).

It would be better to ask:

“How will Russia and Israel maintain their long term Alliance?”
— Due to the large number of emigrees, Russia and Israel have strong cultural ties.
— Trade between the two nations is flourishing. Up 25% in 2017 (2).

Iran has pushed itself away from Russia by attacking a Russian ally. It should surprise no one that Russia is acting against Iran.

— He is helping Assad establish peace in Syria by pushing out Iranian provocateurs.
— Putin is having Russian firms cut investment in Iran (3).
— And, he is actively poaching European investment away. For example, at the recent Putin-Macron summit, Total-Fina redirecting funds away from Iran and towards Russia (4).

The long term future of Russia as a sovereign state and the ongoing existence of the so-called state of Israel (yet another intellectually insulting misnomer), and continued existence of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective are mutually exclusive.
Using historical records as a predictor of future positioning, the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective will be effectively unable from not pursuing a policy of subversion in Russia.

I believe the mission brief for this discussion was to center on the practical rather than the spiritual. To simplify, we can take Israel entirely off the table.

The outcome is exactly the same.
__________

As a practical matter, Iran and Russia are strategic competitors.

— The more oil Iran exports the lower the price goes.
— Lower oil prices are not in Russia’s strategic interest.
— Thus, it is in Russia’s strategic interest to keep Iranian oil off the market.

For reasons of face and regional positioning Putin cannot openly support the end of the Iranian deal. However, he certainly realizes that the termination of the deal works directly in favor of his nation’s financial interests.
_________

There are also longer term concerns.

Saudi will develop nuclear weapons if Iran continues down the path towards development. How many other countries in the region are likely to follow suit to maintain their regional standing? Turkey?

Even if one believes that both governments are currently responsible and would maintain appropriate weapon controls… Theocracies and monarchies are not noted for peaceful transitions of power. A collapsing government could easily result in a loose nuke in the hands of Chechnyan rebels, which is the absolute worst case scenario for Russia.

Okay let’s get pragmatic, supposing Iran lost her strategic autonomy or the ‘theocracy’ in your own perception got overthrow by the Yankees then the Yankees can decided to flood the market with Iranian oil which will lower the price, wane Europe off Russian gas by supplying them directly from the largest gas field in the world, the south pars/dome shared between Qatar (America’s lackey) and Iran. Thereby dealing a near mortal blow to Russia economy.

What about the Chinese, they will simply become more pragmatic by offering Russia junior partnership so Russia become mostly a oilfield for the Chinese, if they don’t decided to enter into some sort of agreement with the Yankees first thereby throwing Russia to the vultures.

At this point Russia can either resist in an Iranian fashion or bend the knee. So why don’t we all become pragmatic and hang separately.

And lastly, Iran is not a theocracy but Islamic Republic, even the leader is elected by the Expert Assembly whose members are clerics elected through universal suffrage. Not engaging in a parrot like imitation of the AngloZionist system doesn’t mean absence of democracy.

That heavy duty Torah-Pharisees is becoming tedious. Once, maybe twice okay – but every post?? Please don’t repeat that ad nauseam. Thanks, The Saker
————-
A123, there is nothing, whatsoever spiritual about the so-called state of Israel; taking this primary base of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collectiveoff the table constrains any meaningful discussion of these associated issues to such an extent, so as they cannot be discussed intelligently.

Though I could be wrong, I believe the primary driver/antagonist behind any relevance to whether Russia were to ditch Iran, or not is the well-described historical trend of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective and their ongoing objectives and methods.

Taking this primary factor out of the discussion, is similar to a very robust trend of technique of deflection as used extensively by the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collectiveHasbara army.

Taking it off the table takes one out of meaning discussion on this topic.

Ironically, the British Empire and American Empire have been the foremost practitioners of this Machiavellian game of so-called balancing with their centuries-old doctrine of acting as an “off-shore balancer” against continental European rivals–or other rival states.

What Russian ally has Iran attacked? Please be specific – I know of no country, Russian ally or not, “attacked by Iran.” In fact, as far as I can see, Iran hasn’t “attacked” anyone in nigh eons.

If Lukoil divesting from Iran because of US sanctions is ‘Putin’s demand,’ would you then say Total doing so as well is Macron’s? Or is such strict state control over big (international) business the exclusive purview of the Russian leader? … Has the world been naming the wrong president “The most powerful man in the world?” Until now?

PS. If Europe divests from Iran expect to see both Russia and China take up the slack. I’m not sure why you would call that “poaching” seeing it’s the Europs that will be leaving voluntarily however reluctantly?

Vladimir Putin in interview with Chinese media: “Russia will either be a sovereign state, or it will not exist at all. And Russian people will, certainly, choose the first variant. Just as the Chinese people, I believe. We have no other options.”

Putin on Donbass: ‘Vladimir Putin has said that any aggravation of the military conflict in Ukraine would “inflict a tremendous damage” to the country’s statehood and added that Russian support for the Donbass republics will continue.’

Russia has no moral obligation to help Syria or Iran, it’s true, but it does have geopolitical and security imperatives to do so. On Donbass I’ve no doubt that RF will intervene — and it has probably reaffirmed its intentions to its ‘partners’ in the West that it will — if Poroshenko tries anything stupid. It’s written in the RF military doctrine that RF will defend Russians outside Russia’s borders, and in this case it’s a moral imperative.

And in case the hubristic fools in the West doubt Putin’s resolve, significantly he’s begun to speak directly about WW 3 in his Q&A session, something that he’s disinclined to do in the past. This won’t get much coverage in MSM but I’m sure Trump, Macron, May and the rest of the Western criminal gang are paying rapt attention — Western propaganda notwithstanding — to the words of a man who has control over a formidable armed forces and a stockpile of about 7 000 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Is Putin’s patience getting thin? For the sake of the rest of the world, I hope not. For the sake of the RoW I hope people in the West get the message even if it is lost on their AZ masters who are itching for war between RF and US/Nato.

Boiling down the basics…
1. Whether or not it would be a definitive event, Syria is required as a buffer to Iran.
2. Iran is required as a buffer to the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective’s (TPTc) psychopathic aims and methods, the current physical objective being the consolidation of the Middle Eastern territory consistent with the Oded Yinons plan for the greater territory of Israel.please note:I am now attempting to avoid what I see is a typical TPTc conflagration, i.e. grouping it with other agencies, i.e. the anglos; if the reading on the long standing, 2500 years, methods of the TPTc’s are even close to accurate, please see Douglas Reed “The Controversy of Zion“, then the linkage to the anglos and/or the Americans are as a subordination/subordinated nature, thus more accurately referred to as an agency of Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective interests
3. Russia is required for … many reasons for strategic and tactical success of China as it’s own ongoing sovereign geopolitical entity.

On the basis of these points, if one assumes that Putin is doing his best for the Russian people, and Russia as an ongoing sovereign geopolitical entity, “giving up Iran” would obviously be a catastrophe, and I would even go so far as to say that China would not allow it to happen!

Totally agree, by the way, with the now imminent collapse of the empire, decayed and enfeebled by the parasite’s neurotic inability to stop sucking the life-blood from host nations, i.e. Babylon, Persia, Moorish Spain, The Ottoman Empire, 19th century Germany (one could argue), and the Soviet.
Or maybe destruction is the prime objective; one could be forgiven for thinking it so, based on the accurate historical evidence.

“If the Neocons continue on their current course, and I don’t see any indication whatsoever that they are reconsidering it, then the question is only when/where this will lead to a full-scale war first. Your guess is as good as mine.”

The American Bully Empire is forcing Putin to either fight now in Syria, or be forced back and back into an untenable position. Putin needs to draw the red line now in Syria, and be willing to fight now to back it up. A bad choice, but one he is being forced to make by the Empire’s aggressive thrusts.

The situation between Putin and the Empire is this: fight me now or fight me later, but the Empire is determined to conquer Russia. Putin may think he can play a waiting game, but the Empire is onto that, and is pressing the issue in ways that will defeat that strategy, using the overwhelming conventional forces at it’s disposal. Building bases in Syria, and attacking Iran via multiple modalities is only the prelude to attacking Russia. Trump and his deep state handlers intend to strike now while the iron is hot, and give Russia no chance to avoid open conflict for long. Intensifying the war against Russia which is already in progress is the Empire’s determined intention.

While it is possible that the … irrational “leaders of the empire, including, of course, the sociopathic, neurotic Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective and their titular chief agitator, Yahoo, will continue to move towards this multiple modalities warfare (good term, btw), as per many analyses, here, Southfront, Strategic Org. etc. on the ground, the Axis of Resistance is in the ascendancy, and has the boots on the ground, which the empire’s cohort does not have.

An overt use “overwhelming conventional forces“, despite lack of combat-experience, and the battle-hardening necessary to prevail over what is likely the most battle-hardened forces currently in the world, would however likely result in forcing China into some kind of overt action.

On the one hand, global security: this would be bad, since it would further polarize competing world factions, and likely draw everyone nearer to global nuclear conflict, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff.

It could be … somewhat good, if it acted as a deterrent to the outright insane actions of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud collective-driven empire belligerences; but, as history has shown us, without a more permanent control on the activities of this extremist cult, conflict with Iran is inevitable. The cult suffers from a self-perpetuating group social mental illness, which forecasts an inability to accept a fair and balanced relationship with anybody.
Also, not insignificantly, the current limits of the official explanation sold to the people living in the empire, by all of the methods many of us see via the mainstream media/perception management programs, will lose a certain number of zombified citizens; it is maintaining a critical mass of ideological zombies which ultimately enables the empire’s tyrants to continue their programs.

On the other hand, if what you say is 100% true, I (hope and) expect that Putin/Russia knows this, and is making preparations to mitigate these risks with the best options available; certainly China is working at a certain level of cooperation, and in coordination for such a potential inconvenient possibility.

After all this, I still think that Putin/Russia (and China) get comparatively stronger, to the empire, as each day passes.
Thus, delay, employing all means that won’t compromise future positions ,is currently the best strategy, and I believe this is the approach now in use by the Axis of Resistance/VVP.

Dissident X: Delay is apparently the choice of Putin at this point, and it may turn out to be the best strategy. But to think that the Empire has no options to disrupt this stalling posture would be a mistake. Also, your response indicates you are aware of how irrational those in charge of the Empire can be at this time. I would not characterize Trump and his unholy crew as patient in any sense whatever. Trigger happy would characterize them more fittingly. I just don’t believe that these folks are going to sit still for Putin’s delaying game for very long. The ominous marshaling of military forces on the border of Russia presages more than an empty bluff in my estimation. I hope of course that I am wrong, and that whatever strategy Putin employs can stave off the looming nuclear war, but I am afraid the Empire now intends to up the ante on all means of pressure on Russia to an intolerable level. The question will be: when will Putin take a stand? I would prefer he do it sooner than later.

Mike, I am enjoying the discussion, and agree with you on most facts and analyses.
I agree with the quiet ramping up on empire assets and their itchy trigger finger; the hallmark of the deeply insecure bully.
But VVP is good, and they are ready for the worst case, the empire is NOT.

Let’s hope he’s even better and he can manage to forestall, obviously they must be understanding at a very good reliability/validity what the empire is doing, better than you and I.
There is plenty of material for everybody to have made a psychological profile of Trump and his inner cabal, and their masters.

The original article is about whether Russia is ‘throwing Iran under the bus, and I say, “no“, they can’t afford to, for all the reasons you have cited.

Iran is of obvious critical strategic locus, regardless of the if/when onset of overt aggressions.
Clearly we see the onset of a retrained, coordinated guerrilla Daesh, coming from US/YPG controlled territory.
And other stufff…

But at the same time, fracturing EU, and then it will be the big showdown with the NATO issue.

What exactly is this “untenable position” that Putin is being forced into in Syria?

At this point, the world, or at least the non-western-brainwashed portions, will see that Russia came in and supported an ally and help beat back the scourge of crazy Islamic terrorism that the west seems quite powerless to even knock back a step. Russia has done this with very small military units. A small handful of ships, a small detachments of airplanes, some air defenses around those bases. Add to that an unknown amount of Russian advisors who are out with the other militaries in Syria, as well as some military police in deconfliction zones and some de-mining engineers.

Lets just say that Israel does attack Syria and Syria falls to the Israeli Empire. What’s the negative of that to Russia? What is the “untenable position” that Putin has been forced into? The strategic defenses of Russia are in no way weakened or compromised. Russia will be able to stand proud and say that they helped to defeat the western-proxy Islamic terrorist forces, but then forced Israel-KSA-USA axis to launch a full-scale open war.

America operates on the pure gangster mentality that says that any sign of weakness of defeat dooms them because it puts to the lie all of the rest of their intimidation and bullying. America thus now has its gansta panties in a wad because they’ve been stalemated and driven back in Syria. But that in no ways implies that Russia is in some way in an untenable position if they have to retreat after giving the gangsters a bloody nose. And, Russia’s main concern is the defense of Russia from the gangsters who want to intimidate and bully and threaten to attack, and if anything Russia would retreat back to Russia in a much stronger stance having shown the effectiveness of its weapons and the quality of its military to the world.

Weasel is a known liar and Judaic supremacist. The two assertions you quote are (removed language,MOD), of course. Gorbachev is well beloved by the Zionazis because he opened up the USSR for the looting under Yeltsin, following the ‘economic plan’ of the Harvard economic Kosher Nostra, that impoverished tens of millions, but massively enriched a tiny cabal of Jewish oligarchs, who we MUST worship for their ‘business acumen’.

I particularly loved the propaganda trope that Jews were the most successful oligarch parasites in looting the USSR, because Jews had suffered such ‘discrimination’ in the USSR, that they had, no doubt ‘reluctantly’, learned how to rip off the rest of Soviet society in order to survive. Not ‘Crying while shooting’, but ‘Crying while stealing’. Of course, inconvenient facts like Khodokorvsky being bank-rolled by the Rothschilds (Yes-they DO exist!)rather ruin that typically narcissistic faery-story.

While it is true that the anglo sionists have as their main objective the encirclement of Iran and its subsequent balkanization. The real struggle between the axis Tel Aviv-Washington-London-Paris V. S. Beijing-Moscow-Tehran is for the conquest of the European space and mainly for attracting Germany, which for now remains firmly in the anglo sionist field. The growing problems of the European Union, with the Brexit, the triumph of the new anti-Brussels coalition in Italy and the less subordinate positions on the part of Hungary and to a lesser extent of Austria, herald increasingly conflicting times for the European Union, with what Russia, with its energy offers and especially China with the One Belt One Road Initiative, can finish deconstructing the European Union project in the next five years, and with that, give a very hard blow to the anglo sionist hegemony.

The pretty obvious historical precedent for today’s Russian/ME imbroglio is the Soviet/European rivalries of the 1930s. Stalin’s government had a good grasp of what Fascism in general and Nazism in particular had in store for Russia. Stalin’s commitment to Spain is paralleled by Putin’s to Syria; the Anglo-Zionazi-Takfiri Axis of Kindness being today’s equivalent of the Anti-Comintern pact.

What’s muddying the waters ideologically in each case is Moscow’s unrequited love for “Europe”. Stalin was wrong pandering to Britain and France. They showed convincingly their Fascist affinities not only in their colonies, but also in their awful stance towards Spain and Czechoslovakia. Putin has this weak spot too, but now that it’s Anglo-American imperialism itself which is crumbling in an orgy of total imperialist mindrot and depravity, he cannot possibly envisage a partnership with these scum. Stalin eventually had to take on the beast and succeeded convincingly. Putin has declared that “never again” will Russia herself be ravaged by war. This could mean one of two things. Either Russia keeps her powder dry thus discouraging the Western psychopaths, or else the latter succeed in subverting and subduing Russia, putting the clock back 20 years and declare their final victory without force of arms.

Yes, and we need to mention the role of Poland in those pre-war (II) years. Its govt did all to scuttle any agreement btw Stalin and UK/F. Poles acted despicably – and ended paying a big price for that. One wld think they learned their lesson – but, no…! Acting as stupid today as ever.

Gownopolska — with the exception of the Polish People’s Republic — is an abomination. Gownopolska has a track record of unprovoked military aggression against any country that Churchill’s ”Greedy hyenas” deemed weak and defenceless, either because of political turmoil or because of Gownopolska joining a pack of bigger, stronger bullies; be it Czechoslovakia in 1938 or in presentday Iraq.

Putin is very popular in Russia.Why doesn’t he get rid of the Atlantic Intergrationists,5th column

Putin was asked about the “5th column Atlantic Integrationist”s and why they were still there a couple of years back in one of the many public forums he takes questions at.***

He replied that of course there are people of many different points of view, like Kudrin, close to the government. He said it’s interesting to listen to them although he makes up his own mind based on many factors. They have no power. However, he added, this thing about “5th column” and “Atlanticists” wanting to sell out Russia to American, is, he said, nonsense.
There are none, no such thing, he said.

*** My apologies, but of all the many public forums Putin attends, I just cannot remember this one to give a link. I am sure it was not a direct line – the structure was wrong for that. He was facing the audience, quite close to it and the question came from near the front. It could have been the annual Press Conference [close to Christmas], or Valdai – something like that. I cannot provide the proof, but I have a very clear memory of the incident.

Also in an address to parliament March 18 2014 after re-unification with Crimea – President Putin mentioned “national traitors” in his speech – basically those who work in the interests of another state and not their own.

Its extremely rare to find a large nation who’s government is not some sort of a coaltion of factions.

For example, in the US the limited two-party version of “democracy” leads to two parties that describe themselves as ‘big-tents’. Even the choice of a leader/nominee in these parties is the coming together of a coaltion.

We’ve seen this rather quickly. Trump began by competing for the backing of a minority faction within the Republicans known as ‘the tea party’. Even this is a coalition, but we’ll treat it as a unitary force just for simpliscity. Trump won the support of this wing, and then added the votes of many who’ve been generally disgusted with the US government and feeling left out of the government of the bankers, by the bankers and for the bankers. But even with this, when the contest became a one-on-one battle with Hillary Clinton and her billions of dollars, Trump had to solidify the support of the more traditional wings of the Republican party which in recent times were most visible in the Bush-Cheney administration. Plus Trump needed money, so he made a deal with Adelson and the Israel-first faction.

That was just enough to get Trump elected, and since he’s only able to pass anything through Congress that meets with the approval of the more mainstream Republican screw-the-people faction backed by traditional Republican money sources. And Trump has had a hard time forming a governing team of the thousands of appointees needed by a incoming President without going back to this same mainline Republican bases. Add to this the same Deep State that killed MLK and the Kennedy’s and which in no way recognize democracy as a reason to give up their hold on power. It quickly becomes obvious that a government is not a unitary thing but is instead a whole nest of factions and coalitions.

Thus, it is not surprising to see Putin’s rule in Russia being a coalition of factions. And it would be very rare for him to be able to completely purge competing factions. Putin did grab a large percent of the vote, but that was running in a campaign where he was not openly fighting with partner factions but instead was presenting a united front that had been successfully governing the nation since the drunkard Yelsin and his Harvard Boys stopped killing the Russian people. Putin basically ran on the theme ridiculed in “Wag the Dog” as “Don’t change horses in midstream.” Just because a campaign that basically said “Its working” got a lot of voter support, that does not mean that Putin is in a position to suddenly ditch all of his faction partners in the government.

With all respect I think the approach you follow to explain the geopolitical situation adds up to the confusion and fails short to explain many of the world events. I guess the main problem with this approach is that the initial variables are being set wrong. Simplifying everything into the so called entity “the Empire or hegemon” or “Anglo-Zionist” is a mistake to start with, IMO. This formulation suggests that there is a unified, single entity on one side which fights the influence of Iran (and Russia) in the Middle East for the ultimate interest of Israel. This formula fails short and causes lots of confusion, anger, frustration and even desperation. With this formulation Russian (Putin’s) actions can not be explained. It fails on so many fronts that one can easily become really frustrated. For instance how do you explain the fact that Trump is constantly attacked at home by the MSM, if we believe that he surrendered already to the “neocons” as many alt-media pundits claim. It does not explain the comments of Stoltenberg regarding Nato’s position about Israel, which is mentioned in your article. It does not explain for instance that Iranian declaration of using Euro for Oil trade. It does not explain the charm offensive of EU towards Iran and the US Congress nullyfying sanctions against Iran. Why did Trump put tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the EU? These were not the allies? Can you explain all of this and more by the singleton formula “the Empire” or “Anglo-Zionist”? Seems not.
I would humbly suggest a different twist of thinking which surprisingly has the potential to explain almost all of these seemingly complex, confusing and unexplainable events and much more.
Why don’t we just pretend for a moment that the West is not a unified entity as opposed to the Hegemon theory (single Anglo-zionist Empire). For the sake of the argument, just consider having not one but two entities in the western hemisphere. Just assume that these two entities are fighting for power with the ultimate aim to become the real hegemon of the west as we speak (note that I am excluding the east). Personally, I’d like to call them by the funny sounding monikers the “House of Royals” and the “Yankee Doodle”. As funny and as nonsense they may sound at the beginning, IMO they are revealing and represent quite well what they may be. Without going too much into detail and leaving the rest to the imagination and inspiration of others, I would only suggest you to consider this approach. It helped me to explain almost every single event going on in the world from Mexican, Canadian tariffs to Iranian new found love in Euro all the way to Putin’s unshakeable frienship with Israel and much more.
You may simply disregard it as a conspiracy or nutcase. No problem, I would understand. But if you have a few moments just think about it a bit more deeply. It has the potential to provide you most of the answers. Regards.

Things are not as simple as we sometimes like to make them…in engineering we find the same thing…we must make some simplifying assumptions in order to make the problem tractable to mathematical analysis…and allow us to create predictive models…

However…these simplifying assumptions cannot be so sweeping as to make the entire exercise meaningless…

I for one have a problem with the Anglo-Zionist meme…many people I respect greatly seen to buy into this Israeli tail wagging the US dog theory…but this leaves very much detail out of the picture…

US absolutely needs Israel as their Fortress in the Mideast, a strategic region which is essential to the US on many levels…not least the petrodollar which allows the US to continue breathing even though its economic fundamentals should have spelled death years ago…

In this view Israel is simply very cagey in knowing how much they mean to US survival [survival of the US dominated global economic and political order]…and they are simply extracting a very dear price, as is typical of the shrewd horse trader…

I can also see that Israel is having doubts about the US Titanic staying afloat much longer and looks to be hedging its bets by cozying up to Russia [to some limited extent at this stage in the game]…

So if we consider some of these basic dynamics, it seems clear that the Anglo-Zionist Empire simplification is already way too simple…

To paraphrase Einstein’s famous quote…the best explanation is the most simple one…but not too simple…

A very interesting article written a year ago proved to be correct: Putin sold out his Euroasian partners, especially Iran.
—
Putin’s Tough Choice: China Or The West

“Putin’ supporters refuse to believe that the strong-minded autocrat will turn against his EuroAsian friends, particularly China given the signed momentous multi-billion dollar energy deals with Russia, as well as Russia’s central position in the roll-out of the China’s enormous Silk Road project.
The problem for Russia is that the opportunities for participation in Chinese Silk Road ventures require heavy upfront investment with profits only linked to a distant future, while the Russian government budget is in dire need now. Instead, the Western promises, for example, such as pipelines, can be built in one year on already existing and ongoing projects with the EU, with guaranteed financing and payoffs.”

“Russia’s also understands that despite its emerging friendship with Iran, Iran is also the single strongest competitor to Russia for the European and Asian energy markets.”

President Putin just made a very clear point in his Q&A session that China is Russia’s largest trading partner. And that this will obviously grow much larger as the big oil and gas pipelines announced a few years ago have not yet been completed. As well as the other investments into other Belt and Road infrastructure projects begin to pay off.

Of course, the jarheads in DC have not yet figured out that Putin and Russia have just gone to the head of the line in selling to a market of a billion Chinese plus the large sphere of influence that China is certain to have (and historically always has had) in the Asia region. Or if its starting to get through their arrogance, its starting to gnaw at them.

The gas pipelines from Russia to China are only going to carry 20% of the amount of gas that Russia pipes to Europe. Russia wants to increase those supplies to Europe so they will always or in the near future, be the most important to Russia.
With the importance of the Europe gas market to Russia it can be seem to be very beneficial to Russia to block Iranian influence in Syria to prevent an Iranian pipeline reaching the Mediterranean. To block any pipelines through Syria it is not necessary to resolve the trouble in Syria because the pipelines wont be built while there is unrest. This could explain why it took four years of war before Russia offered any help to Syria.
I think most decisions by Russia are made by financial concerns and therefore Iran, that has very little trade with Russia, not even top 20 for Russian exports and getting less year by year, could quite happily be thrown under the bus.

I disagree strongly with the idea that Russia ‘sold out’ the East for the West…

Here you are guilty of the same kind of oversimplification which you rejected just one comment earlier…even worse in fact…

Just now Putin is in China meeting with Xi…trade between the two has increased 30 percent so far this year…and is on track to reach $100 billion…that is still less than half of Russia’s trade with the EU…

Russia is in a very strategic position…it is the land bridge between the far east and Europe…Putin is doing a good job of balancing this…the whole Eurasian integration hinges on this very concept…and there is no doubt in my mind that Eurasian integration will in fact happen…we see the EU starting to diverge slowly from the insane US which is anyway heading over a cliff…

Now let’s look at Russian actions once again. If Putin was “on the same side with Netanyahu all along”, he would be helping the Israelis do what they are doing, that is baiting the Iranians, right? But what did Putin really do?

This is to discuss the application of the principle of “kuzushi” in Japanese arts which are said to be mastered by Putin. Kuzushi means balance in general and taking your foe’s balance in combat in particular. This suggests that Judo, Ju Jutsu and Aikido practitioners will never meet force with force or go head on to a charging foe. A Judoka would utilize his/her foe’s: movements, momentum and initiative against them. There is also an economy of force in which only a minimum of force is added or spent. A Judoka waits for the right timing to implement throws and / or seek submissions by joint stress or estrangulation chokeholds. For this reason a consummate Judoka, like Putin, will be seen to be reactive rather than proactive. This is what happened in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donbass and Syria. The RF under Putin’s leadership is reactive not proactive but that doesn’t automatically mean that he is ineffectual.

When Bush neocon government took the USA out of the ABM treaty and started the deployment of the Aegis ashore, the RF went to drawing board which resulted in the wonder weapons made known to us in the March 1st Putin’s speech.

When the RF limited Trump’s Tomahawk missile attack it helped Syrian AD knock down a large percentage of TLAMs. That failed decapitation attack proved that Syria doesn’t need the S300.

People are now claiming that Putin is a sell out because supposedly he is ditching the Iranians on behalf of Israel. That is not an accurate picture because there are no Iranian troops but Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the role of advisers plus a whole bunch of pro-Iranian militias like Hezbollah and assorted Shiite legionnaires from all over the place. These are going nowhere as they are not Iranians.

Same people claimed that Putin betrayed the Donbass. I think not. When the West gave RF the Maidan, RF took back Crimea with near zero bloodshed. That was a master stroke of Kuzushi. It also gave the pro-Bandera and Jewish oligarch junta the anti Bandera Donbass which is a military powerhouse in its own right as they fight for their lives and property. As the frozen conflicts in South Ossetia & Abkhazia became impediments for Georgia to become a full fledged member of the NATO alliance, this quasi frozen conflict in the Donbass became an impediment for Ukraine to join NATO. If Putin’s RF had taken the Donbass, there would be no impediment for Western Ukraine to become a full member of the NATO alliance sitting at RF doorsteps.

With the Ukraine, Russia has turned what the west thought would be a winning stroke into a disadvantage to the west. Now, Ukraine is a vulnerability. Strategically and economically. Economically, because I’m sure Putin knew what it was costing Russia to keep Ukraine propped up as an ally. Now the west gets to pay those bills.

Strategically, Ukraine is now a vulnerability. It is a forward and advanced position, but Ukraine is far less able to defend itself than Poland. In the event of a conflict between the Empire and Russia, Ukraine is something the Empire must defend. For example…. At the time of Washington’s ineffective cruise missile attacks on Syria, it seemed as if the world might be on the brink of a major Empire vs Russia war. This would have made both sides take a close look at all of their positions, especially in Europe where there is direct contact. And surely both sides would quickly see that in the event of a major war, Russia is quite capable of quickly retaking Ukraine. I would think it would only be a matter of days from the start of such a war to the Russian’s occupying Kiev. Thus, strategically NATO is weakened because it now has an advanced, forward position from a previous attack that now must be defended. This is actually the common sequence during WW2 fighting in Russia. A side that made a successful attack was then left with a salient that could easily be attacked by the enemy.

The martial arts master letting an opponent think they see an opening for an attack, then taking advantage of the opponent willingly sacrificing balance for the attack. Its just that on the world stage, it happens a lot slower at times than the lightening reflexes of competing martial arts masters in a contest.

Dimitar, Anonymous & Dissident X,
You are welcome. I figured that Budo artists may appreciate such insights into the mind of another (I.e.Putin).

In Bushido derived modern arts it is important to “blend in” your movements into the opponent’s to add just the minimalist force required to unbalance him and throw him off his intended path and objective.

You could say that leverage applied in the right spot of the rail tracks may allow anyone to derail a fast moving train. You could also say that a matador does not charge head on but feigns and moves “out of the way” of the charging bull.

The key “to impose your will” is with mastery of the timing, deep breathing relaxation, patience and self confidence. Respect for your opponent will prevent indulging in overconfidence.

In “winning without fighting” you may present your opponent with a face saving exit instead of a humiliating defeat. It is better to have a bad deal than a good fight, yet some concessions might be required.

You could say that it is infuriating to see such a leader delay its action or concede as it may appear indecisive or appeasing.

But the experienced Budoka waits until the opponent is committed to an attack and only then he blends in his movements to take control of the center of gravity and imposes his will.

Stoltenberg’s comments regarding NATO’s position vis a vis war between Iran and Israel should not be taken in isolation. Keep in mind that Turkey’s Army represents the bulk of NATO’s armies with the exception of the US Army. Pompeo knows this and has found an accommodation with Cavusoglu regarding the YPG leaving Manbij. Stoltenberg knows that this has the potential to split NATO apart for good.

But nevertheless, Stoltenberg’s comments should be taken together with US Congress taking away from Trump the evergreen war authorization with respect to Iran.

This means that there is a powerful faction of the establishment that is actively resisting the Greater Israel Yinon AIPAC-PNAC agenda. This faction knows that war with Iran would be the end of the Empire.

“… today I want to stick strictly to the pragmatic level and set aside, just for a while, moral/ethical/spiritual considerations.”

*

Fair enough, Saker. To be pragmatic still remains praiseworthy.

Yet again I will repeat emphatically here that the point ought to be made, again and again, that in today’s world more than ever, Russia and the Russian people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by occupying the moral high ground at all times, staying clear from everything “nauseating to ( one’s) conscience”. Geopolitically, that is no trivial matter!

As Gandhi made plain: without exception, the end is in the means. I would add that internationally, moral nausea is known to linger on for a frightfully long time indeed. Hence, in that regard, human models better think long term!

What is crucial right now is Syria…it is a conflict as significant as the Spanish Civil War…which was the prelude to the great catastrophe of WW2…

Let’s be direct and simple about this…with every single day that goes by Russia is on its way to winning decisively in Syria…this is worth reflecting on…

The April missile strikes on Syria were a result of the US deep state and MSM propaganda ministry creating conditions of public hue and cry that ‘president’ Tronald Dump had to respond to…

What is telling is that Mattis and the military were extremely cautious not to harm a single hair on a Russian head…and in fact not one person actually died in this little firecracker show…which is remarkable in itself when you consider that a quarter of a billion dollars worth of American ‘technology’ was used up…

As a result the entire Damascus area has been cleared of a major insurgent army…

Now Putin is slowly moving on to the Next Big Thing…which is going to be the liberation of the southern pockets and perhaps even the withdrawal of the US pocket at the Iraq border [At Tanf]…

This, like all the previous operations..Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, Douma etc…will not go down easily with the War Machine that still dreams of somehow achieving their aims in Syria…[however truly delusional that may seem to normal people]…

That is the only reason that Putin is powwowing with Netanyahoo…things are very tense right now and if Putin can achieve the liberation of southern Syria by means of deft diplomacy…the so much the better…

We have to realize that things could actually blow up if the Israelis start pounding Syria as they threaten to do…

Instead we are seeing Putin placating Israel about Iranians in the area…and we are likely to see this big success in the south in the coming weeks…it will be another huge step to final victory in Syria…

As for the US saber rattling against Iran…well this is really not Moscow’s concern…many here have already pointed out that Iran is an energy competitor in the European market…but there are a lot of other ‘issues’…

For one thing…Syria is not thrilled with the Iranians either…especially the military officer corps who see the Iranians as arrogant and condescending…and Russia doesn’t need Iranian chefs spoiling the soup in Syria…

There are other things…what has Iran ever really done for Russia…?

They were giving moral support, if not material support to Chechen terrorists for years…in Bosnia they were actually giving a lot of material support to the Muslim terrorists to kill Serbs, which Russians regard as their closest kin…

Even today Iran is on the wrong side of history with their support of ‘Rohingya’ terrorists in Myanmar…

Whatever you may think of religion or Shiism it is not clear that religious fanatics have ever done anything good for anyone…or even act rationally most of the time…

I could go on here…Russia stood up for Iran while the country was being literally strangled by the US and European blockade [ie sanctions]…

Iran returned the favor by placing $40 billion worth of aircraft orders from US Boeing and EU Airbus…while snubbing the Russian aviation industry…which is trying to get back to in the game…I was simply astounded at the utter dishonesty in the Iranian media which trashed Russian aircraft incessantly…

Now the Iranians are back to the drawing board and it is a sure bet that they won’t get their Boeings or Airbuses…poetic justice some might say…

Russia doesn’t need unreliable partners…unfortunately the EU has been just as unreliable but you gotta dance with someone…

So it is oversimplifying greatly to conjure up this image of Iran and Russia somehow joined at the hip…this is not the case at all…

There are some quite clearly anti-Iranian voices in Russia…and some of these go too far also…for instance just the other day the outlet New Eastern Outlook ran a piece by one Viktor Titov that could be called disnformatsiya…saying the Iranians had ‘breached’ the deal with their announcement that they would increase uranium enrichment to 3.5 percent…which is the legal limit of the JCPOA…Iran being under that now and also announcing that they do not intend to exceed that, as per the deal…

So we see that some in Russia are going too far in bashing Iran also…certainly the fifth column scumbags would throw anyone under the bus to ingratiate themselves with the West…

But Putin is doing a fine job balancing this…we need to remember here that Russia is a stickler for international law and a rules based order [a real not make believe one]…

The US is in violation of the UN Security Council by trashing the Iran deal…that’s the highest legal authority on earth…so Russia is clearly going to uphold the law here…

The EU is making a lot of noise but at the end of the day they can’t shield their big companies from sniping by the US if they dare to keep on dealing with Iran…

This obviously frustrates the European leaders as it throws their subservience in their face…

So again this is a diplomatic opportunity for Russia…And Russia’s diplomacy has been unparalleled…we should not forget that diplomacy can get even better results than military might…

I have always said that Putin has been masterful on foreign affairs and is a statesman of unique standing…[only his domestic policy is a big question and will remain so as long as the central bank issue is not solved]…

Putin may be playing tensions down in order to have a great world football championship, without naughty surprises from the Anglo-Zionist Empire, and after that he will take his old course. Good thinking.

I have read the article and I am aware that it is a reaction to Israel’s media boasting about having VVP in the pocket when it comes to ‘ditching’ Iran. I concur with the pragmatic reasoning of the Saker (and many of the commenters) but I still want to take this reasoning one step further by arguing that from a pragmatic point of view Israel indeed has a lot of leverage on the Kremlin, at least for the short and medium term; in the area of technology.
One way of assessing the outcome of Putin’s assumed dilemma (to ditch or not to ditch Iran) is to acknowledge that Israel, with all its aggressive arrogance, triumphalism and immorality, is just a vast criminal organisation sponsored and supported by the Anglo-Zio empire and the EU (member states). Israel will never be able to subdue Iran on its own but would rather like the US and EU do it for her. Assuming that the US/UK/EU would decline to act as Israel’s street thugs, a direct attack by the Zio state on Iran, including landing ships and planes and ground forces (who happen to have their main combat experience in butchering Palestinian children) is inconceivable.
The Saker refers to Ostashko who says that an attack by the Israel on Iran would be ‘hard’ if Russia’s neutrality cannot be secured by Israel. Ostashko then indulges in a fantasy that on May 9th the Butcher of Gaza asked VVP to ‘ditch’ Iran in exchange for him lobbying Washington to ease the sanctions on Russia. But he dismisses the idea, because, if Israel would actually have lobbied on behalf of Russia, the Donald would have reneged on ‘easing’ of sanctions before he would even have eased these. The same for the European vassals.
Ostashko then asks what else could persuade VVP to ditch Iran? Money? No. There is more money in a good relationship with Iran. Investment? No. Investment comes and goes. Technology? No. Ostashko says: ‘I have a hard time imagining technology that would be worth such an exchange’… ‘Right now the government of Israel lacks leverage; it has nothing to offer Kremlin to make it change its position’ (of siding with Iran in case of an attack). Ostashko concludes by saying: ‘the signal of (the butcher of Gaza attending to the ceremonies in Kremlin) is that the Israel leadership accepts the role and international influence of Russia.’
The Saker agrees: ‘Ostashko is absolutely right. The truth is that Israel, unlike Iran, has very little to offer Putin or Russia. This does not mean that Israel does not have influence over the Kremlin, it most definitely does, but that influence is all “stick”, no “carrot” … and Israel’s “stick”, while undeniable big, is dwarfed by Iran’s “carrot”.
So what was it that made VVP invite the butcher of Gaza to the 9th May affair and allow him to show his smirching face on our screens? What are the grounds for Haaretz ‘analyst’ Pfeffer to say that ‘Putin is ready to ditch Iran to keep Israel happy and save Assad’s victory’ by allowing Israel to keep Iran and its proxies away for Israel’s borders and allowing Israel free access to the skies of Syria and (potentially) Iran by denying these countries purchase of the S300 and S400 air defence systems. What Jewish “stick” is The Saker talking about? Or is this “stick” actually a Jewish “carrot”?
At this point I am badly missing the invaluable advice of Scott Humor, because the answer is ‘technology’, which is a subject I know little or nothing about. The Jewish “carrot” (or “stick”) is the fact that Israel does not participate in the Anglo-Zio ‘sanctions’ show, notably in the area of technology. Otashko thinks this is a non-issue, but I must disagree because in the short to medium term Russia, in spite of its admirable prowess in that area, is not ‘sovereign’. Actually when it comes to technology, which is a global phenomenon, no country is ‘sovereign’, but that is another issue. In the case of Russia, this concerns specifically:
a/ the development of the T14 Armata tank for military use for the defence of Russia and for sales on the global market to challenge the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 and their likes. One essential element in the design of the T14 Armata is its unmanned turret which requires optical technologies which are not yet available in Russia. An article by Buehler suggests that Elbit Systems LTD could be the supplier of this technology: ‘With such technology, as offered by the Israeli company ELBIT Systems under the name “Iron Vision” for use on armored vehicles, the commander of a T-14 could see even more than the commander of a battle tank with a manned turret’. https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=33534
b/ the development of the new Irkut MC-21 aircraft for civilian and military use in Russia and for sales on the global market challenging Boeing and Airbus. Noting that recently Russia has grounded all remaining Tu 134 and Tu 154 aircraft due to mishaps, the MC-21 is urgently needed to sustain internal connections, leave alone its potential to become a valuable export item. To move from development to production Irkut is hurt by sanctions prohibiting the involvement of at least 15 non-Russian suppliers. One essential element that has to be imported is related to ‘avionics’ and Israel’s Elbit Systems LTD can supply these in the form of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS). Note that Israel does not take part in the Anglo-Zio ‘sanctions show’ (even when it is at the core of the Anglo-Zio empire). Besides Elbit is full owner of Universal Avionics Systems Corporation based in Tucson, Arizona (which would allow a US based firm to circumvent US sanctions).https://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/articles/2017/06/what-is-the-irkut-mc-21-commercial-airliner-and-why-is-the-new-aircraft-unique.htmlhttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/elbit-systems-completes-acquisition-universal-071100759.html
c/ the development of ‘avionics’ technology in general. Russia is weak in this area, due to the admirable simplicity of its military avionics as applied during the 20th century, which was most effective for direct operations often at the expense of crew safety both in tanks and aircraft. Right now this technology is urgently needed to enhance both effectiveness and crew safety. In this regard MC-21 avionics and T14 Armata vision systems for its unmanned turrets are two branches from the same tree. And the name of the tree is Elbit Systems Ltd, based in Haifa Israel.
To summarise: ‘Putin’s biding of time is not just a matter of his defence ‘judo’ skills but also of his technology ‘judo’ skills.

You mean to say that the country which reached space first, launched a satellite first, is an undisputed master of jet fighters, tanks, submarines, antiaircraft systems, missiles, satellite vigilance technology and spy craft, known to keep unknown branches of science in secret development, capable of designing the best electronic warfare and guidance systems…

…depends on a little wannabe country whose little technological achievements come from stolen patents from the U.S. and is still not capable of defending itself from crude rocketry without aegis American warships around…

…for its survival?

Sorry, kid.

This is not only absurd, it is actually a bad joke.

Russia is 1,200 years old. Israel has not been capable of achieving proper statehood or a sustainable geopolitical projection in 70 years.

Eugene Gerden explains how Russian avionics capabilities have declined after the fall of the Sovjet Union: http://interactive.aviationtoday.com/avionicsmagazine/october-november-2017/ramping-up-russian-avionics/
Gerden writes: ‘Prior to the American (and international) sanctions, the Russian aircraft manufacturing industry actively imported foreign avionics, mostly from the U.S. Many Russian design bureaus also had contracts with some of the world’s leading avionics designers and producers, such as Honeywell Aerospace.’
And:

‘According to Russia’s plans, the share of domestic avionics in Russian aircraft (both civil and military) should reach 50% in value terms by 2018. Implementation of these plans would bring about 18 billion rubles ($300 million) of additional revenue to the domestic avionics industry next year, according to government officials.’
Apparently Elbit Systems Ltd is stepping into the sanctions gap. As I mentioned this also concerns the Armata T 14 project.http://interactive.aviationtoday.com/avionicsmagazine/october-november-2017/ramping-up-russian-avionics/
Russia is 1200 years old and buys avionics from Haifa based Elbit Systems. China is 5000 years old and buys avionics from Haifa based Elbit Systems.

“…the answer is ‘technology’, which is a subject I know little or nothing about…;”

Removed – no attacking other commenters. Mod

Russia’s in-development MC21 airliner uses a number of Western components not Western ‘technology’…for the simple reason that Russia has equivalent [and in many cases superior] technology in the exact same category and class of components…and has for many years…in fact inventing or perfecting or advancing many of these key technology areas…

I say this as an aerospace engineer and former test pilot who actually does know something about the subject…and who has worked at Nasa and cooperated extensively with the Russian aviation and space industry and spent many professional hours at both Nasa Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, California… and the Gromov Flight Test Center in Zhukovsky, Russia…

The aviation industry is hugely important in today’s world…especially civil aviation…we live in a world where more and more of the world’s people need to travel…

Until 1991 the Soviet aviation industry accounted for about a third of the world’s total…since the catastrophic implosion of the Soviet bloc…this vital industry has been dominated by the West…

This industry is intensely political and Russia’s very hard road back into the game has nothing to do with the country’s technology potential, which, in my own professional estimation, is unmatched in the world…

It has everything to do with political barriers…the airlines which buy aircraft from the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus are Western dominated also…they will not buy Russian equipment even if it is better and cheaper…

It also must be said that there is a legitimate practical angle here also…aircraft require parts and service networks that work very fast and efficiently around the globe, in order to keep an airline’s aircraft flying…

Russia, while making exceptionally good aircraft [with entirely domestic components and zero foreign content] is unfortunately failing in its service aspect, which is in fact of paramount importance…

We see this in the Sukhoi SuperJet 100 which has made inroads in the international market and is operated prominently by a Mexican carrier [also an Irish carrier]…and in which case flying aircraft in the fleet have had to be cannibalized for parts…

This is unacceptable…and the reason this is happening is because Russia still cannot put in the resources required to build a world-class service and support network for its aircraft…

And the reason why Russia can’t seem to do that is because of any number of factors that have to do with the political fifth column…and mostly Putin’s refusal to take Russia’s central bank out of the hands of the globalist money cabal and thereby allow Russia to create its own capital as needed…

Those foreign components in the MC21 [especially the Pratt & Whitney engines] are there to make the product more palatable to global airlines…

The world’s airlines have standardized on avionics made by a handful of suppliers like Honeywell and these are what the world’s pilot training infrastructure is based on…the flight sims in which airline pilots must get ongoing training every six months and even to qualify to fly new jets…

It is a very steep hill for Russia to climb now…but they will get there…

For the domestic market the MC21 can be equipped with completely domestic engines and avionics…but the choice will be up to the Russian carriers also…

And incidentally…other than engines, in which technological progress is still ongoing…things like avionics are really commoditized items now based on technology that has been around for decades…there is nothing new or innovative there…

There are many more details with which the layman can have no conception in this industry…Russia is also a major contractor for both Boeing and Airbus…in both design and engineering…as well as manufacturing…

Choosing components for any particular aircraft is ultimately up to the carrier that is purchasing the airplane…the airframe manufacturers will always give the customer a choice of engines and avionics…

So your comments about technology and the MC21 in particular is uniformed and counterproductive that I have had to spend time in setting things straight for the readers here…not my preferred use of time…

Even if, indeed, Russia was in need of these Elbit components, my point is that it is not enough ‘carrot’ from ‘Israel’ to Russia. Not saying they would not be convenient, sure they would. But they would still be a small matter from a strategic point of view.

As in ‘Russia needs this Israeli technology so much for their commercial jets that they are willing to ditch their strategic partnership with a huge country and ancient civilization down south that controls the Persian Gulf and would represent an immense security risk to Russia if conventional or hybrid war destabilized it’.

I just do not see it. Russia may play maskirovka in its relationship with Iran or not, but the fact is that Iran’s political and economic stability is far more important to Russia than Elbit components or even the MC21 airliner.

My point is that I once heard a top Russian General referring to Iran as a ‘strategic partner’ and to Israel as ‘an important partner’.

I always appreciate your journalism Saker, and agree with the vast majority of your statements and analyses, but with one exception, perhaps because I have particular experience with Israel’s influence on workd leaders from a uniquely American perspective.

I had never considered Putin and Netenyahu to be colluding all along, but now I do, because they have.

I had great hopes for Putin succeeding where our treasonous and evil government had failed.
I as well as most have been disenchanted by Putin’s appeasement of Netenyahu, the Knesset, the Mossad, and the IDF.

I thought that Putin would have been intelligent enough to learn from America’s mistakes. It appears that I overestimated Putin’s intelligence.

In the very least, what the world community had hoped for from Putin was not to give legitimacy, credence, and credibility the evil Israeli government led by Netenyahu, the Knesset, The Mossad, and the IDF, but Putin let the world down, by meeting with Netenyahu three times, entertaining him for photo-ops during the Russian parade lending legitimacy and credibility to a leader and a country that is deserving of neither, which Netenyahu then turned around and exploited for the purposes of political propaganda.

Just saw him on the telly at the World Cup game in Russia. The English twits doing the game showed him shaking hands with President Putin after a Russia goal where a Saudi defender fell down and left the guy wide open.

The English twits made jokes about the two of them making an oil deal that would cost English motorists at the pump this weekend. The English twits of course made no mention of MBS using English weapons to kill thousands of people and bomb clinics in Yemen.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.